Can We Please Stop Calling Girl With the Dragon Tattoo a Box-Office Disappointment?

"Weak." "Lackluster." "Underwhelming." "Less-than-stellar." Such are the general characterizations of The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo's box-office earnings to date from observers, insiders and pundits around the Web. And now for an equally appropriate one-word response to those perceptions: "Huh?"
I'm not exactly sure what kind of money that experts thought David Fincher's 160-minute, hard-R-rated, unswervingly bleak adaptation of the bestselling novel was supposed to have made by now, but let's look at the facts for a second: Through Tuesday, Dragon Tattoo has earned a little more than $79 million domestically. (In all likelihood it passed $80 million on Wednesday, but again -- facts!) That would be $79 million in three weeks of release, the best showing ever for an R-rated December drama in that time frame. Or call it a thriller if you want; that still makes it second only to -- wait for it -- Scream 2.

Again, that's domestically. Worldwide, it's already made more than its 2009 Swedish predecessor: $108.3 million (and counting) to $104.3 million. Which of course we'd all expect, but from the panicked sound of things you probably wouldn't guess it still has yet to open in 16 foreign markets -- including France, Germany, Australia and Japan.

"Well," one particularly specious argument might follow, "the Swedish version only cost $13 million compared to the Hollywood version's $90 million." True. And...? Would studio boss Amy Pascal, producer Scott Rudin, and the whole Dragon Tattoo team love for it to run away with hearts and minds and half a billion dollars? Of course! On the other hand, do you think the notoriously risk-averse Sony leadership would have budgeted this at $90 million or pulled the trigger on two sequels if it wasn't absolutely positive the film was disappointment-proof? Or that they ever sat Rudin and Fincher down for Culver City come-to-Jesus meeting: "You know, guys, Niels Arden Oplev adapted the same book a couple years ago for $13 million... Can you trim a few things?" Give me a break.

Which reminds me: Who exactly is in this film again? Daniel Craig's never successfully opened anything beyond the Bond franchise. Rooney Mara is best known for five minutes of screen time in The Social Network (though to be fair, she has been a leading lady in a number-one film). The movie is the brand, and the brand is the book. Just because it's the official literature of airline passengers, beach layabouts and subway straphangers far and wide doesn't mean they're all going to turn out for it at Christmas -- not when they can see Tom Cruise hopping around the horizon in Dubai.

Oh, yes -- about that Dec. 21 release date. "It was too cocky of us," one anonymous Sony exec told our sister site Deadline. "We might think about that next time." Yeah, right. Sony and Co. had an awards-friendly strategy from the start, and it worked: Just come out of the holiday frame ahead of War Horse (talk about a movie with no stars and no brand), win some guild notices and maybe a Golden Globe, and then nail down seven Oscar nominations including Picture, Director, Actress, Adapted Screenplay, Cinematography, Score and Art Direction. By this point they've crossed $100 million domestic, and just like that they're the hottest Best Picture-nominated wide release still in theaters. (At least until The Descendants, which is an inarguable commercial success, goes wide.) "We might think about that next time." Ha! You do that, Sony.

And if you don't believe that scenario, then ask yourself this: Why are we facing such a consistent barrage of doom-and-gloom Dragon Tattoo stories in a period when the struggles of fellow Best Picture candidates Hugo, War Horse and even The Artist all go relatively unreported? Especially this week, with Oscar-nomination ballots due tomorrow afternoon? Let me put it this way: If no one envied and/or feared Dragon Tattoo, then we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Elsewhere in the aforementioned Deadline report, a Sony exec is also quoted as saying the $300 million projected globally for their rapey, miserablist Scandinavian potboiler with one marketable star and a hard R-rating and a likely Oscar profile and two sequels on the way would still be "a really good number." Really? You think so, pal? I mean, if the takeaway is that you thought you had the next Hangover on your hands, then trust me: You have have much bigger problems than the movie.

Anyway. The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo is doing fine. Better than fine! It's great! Glad to get that cleared up.

Comments

Assuming you believe the budget, which is never a good idea, and then take into account marketing costs - which are really expensive - the film will probably just about break even when it's all said and done. If you believe that Sony got David Fincher to adapt a wildly successful novel and did not want to make a profit on it, then yes, you are correct this is not a disappointing box office. If, however, one believes - as I do - that Sony saw this as a way to 'make more money than they spent' then the box office is disappointing.

Well put, S.T. Great analysis as usual. Just wanted to second your rebuke of Devin F and just say I'm sick of reading from people who understand basic math and think they can tabulate profits for a film with the limited numbers available to them. These people know very little about how the industry works. They don't know what split was worked out for opening weekend, if any. They don't know the international potential of the film. They don't know what the streaming rights are worth. What the internet pass through rights are worth. They don't really know how much was spent on production or advertising. Yet they pontificate about what the net profits or losses are on films all day long on websites like this and your sister website, Deadline. GWDT has performed exactly as most people with knowledge of the business would expect from an R rated thriller by a lauded director with rape and sex scenes. It's not exactly an event film. Which means it's not going to have a huge opening weekend, but it will also not see huge drops week to week. That's exactly what we've seen. It will stay in the top ten for the next four or five weeks and if there are any nominations, it will get an Oscar bounce. Amy Pascal already order the next two scripts from Zaillian. Mara and Craig are on board. Fincher is still a question mark, but I'm excited to see two more films from these guys. GWDT was well made and fired on all cylinders.

Actually, i thought the critique was valid inasmuch as it was not at all mentioned in the article.

That's totally fair. It's just the condescending way Devin said it, particularly without bringing any specific counterargument to anything above. It's just more of the same disposable claptrap we're seeing from the skeptics more eager to pile on than actually answer the question: "What did you expect?"

But since you answered that question (and thank you, by the way, I sincerely appreciate it), I'll bite! First of all, there are a TON of qualifiers in this breakdown -- applying EJE's equation is to assume quite a bit, for starters. If $90m is indeed a conservative budget estimate, then we're to assume that Sony is in for maybe $100m or more for marketing alone, which just doesn't make sense. I mean, I've seen a lot of marketing for this film, but anything >$90m implies skywriting levels of saturation.

That said, we'll see what happens after the Oscar noms. That will get expensive.

And sure, there could be exceptional movies that do nothing here but monster biz overseas (like the dismal tintin) but it sounds like it will hold true in general.

That's where you lose me. "Nothing here" suggests it skulked out of US theaters with < $70m while coasting to >$250m overseas (at least to use your Tintin example, which, with it being a PG-rated animated comics adaptation, I hesitate to do -- that gross does suck). GWTDT is presently at $80m and was down 23% week two to week three. It'll be at >$100m domestic and >$60m foreign (the latter a VERY rough estimate, but we're both spitballing here) by the time Oscar noms hit, and then, if the Academy does its part, it's off to the races. Even if the Academy DOESN'T do its part, the movie's probably on pace for $250m theatrically. Have we seen better profit margins? Yes! But if, to borrow Devin's oh-so-clever phrasing, "Sony saw this as a way to 'make more money than they spent,'" then hey, look at that.

As of now, there's reason to understand the adjectives being thrown around.

This is crucial. What is the reason? Formulas are perfectly appropriate, but they don't substitute for projections or context. I need someone to tell me where this film should have been domestically by Jan. 13, why all the kneejerk skeptics overlook the HUGE open question of foreign markets, and what would constitute a success.

just want to preface this by saying that i read your article in the first place because hearing those adj about tgwdt was bugging me too! :)

it's just that i ended up understanding those adj when applying epstein's formula after seeing your breakdown of current totals.

------------------------------------

"First of all, there are a TON of qualifiers in this breakdown -- applying EJE's equation is to assume quite a bit, for starters."

absolutely. and i don't discount that at all. it IS true that we don't know all the wheeling and dealing going on behind the scenes and the fudging of numbers... so as an outsider of the accounting dept, i'm just going with the generalities cuz that's all i got.

"If $90m is indeed a conservative budget estimate, then we're to assume that Sony is in for maybe $100m or more for marketing alone, which just doesn't make sense."

it sounds like utter insanity to me too... i mean, how the heck do you justify spending money that actually did the heavy lifting of making something brand new and bringing it into the world and spend that amount on JUST ADVERTISING! madness.

but i was derelict in saying it's just advertising. he was referring to "prints and advertising" ... so money made to create and distribute prints as well as ads.

and the number may look somewhat sane when considering that it's national ad campaigns for web, tv, radio and television + all the ads in foreign markets as well and may account for the dvd sales push when that comes around as well.

so maybe at that point the number becomes understandable sans skywriting?

---------------------------------------

"That's where you lose me."

ooops. i think i wasn't being clear. i wasn't saying anything about tgwdt... the statement you quote was about why i think epstein's formula may be a pretty good across the board analysis tool...

so what i mean to say is that-

his formula of course cannot account for outliers that do nothing here but monster biz overseas (that would make his formula for domestic b.o. X 3 breakdown) but it seems like the formula will hold true [FOR MOST MOVIES].

----------------------------------

so for tgwdt, if we spitball domestic b.o. ends up at $100mil (i hope it'll do more by the end of awards season),

and then divide that by 2 which hopes to approximate the pieces of pie taken up by the partners (theater chains [who may take less and on a gradation as mentioned], foreign theater chains [which definitely take more], and stores, and net companies).

so at that point, again according to epstein's formula, the total money actually made by the studio is $150 million.

balance that against the total epstein's estimates the studio spent ($90 x 2) and their cost ends up at $180 million.

in that case, $100 mil domestic box office will lose the studio money - again according to the epstein formula.

------------------------------------------

actually, as i wrote just above, my analysis based on epstein's book is just a run of the numbers without addressing projections or expectations at all.

it's just looking at it from profit vs. cost. and i can only guess that the people using the adj "disappointing", "anemic", etc. are looking at it the same way.

but of course - this is all based on epstein's formula for me at least.

and to the degree that the movie in question departs from the formula, that's as strong or weak as the analysis holds up.

and of course, we are spitballing final numbers so we can be taken to task there as well... but that's a little bit on firmer ground because you can generally project pretty well what final numbers are based on the first few weeks.

anyway, as i've said, i'm with you in the sentiment that the movie should do better. i really loved it... but i do understand why others are using the adj being used.

jin

p.s. i wonder how much they could have saved by nixing the motorcycle chase... what was she trying to accomplish by getting her teeny tiny motorbike ahead of the SUV anyway?! didn't make sense and should have been the first target of studio penny pinchers.

Got it, Jin, and thanks again for the thoughtful, thorough replies. Without hard data -- which obviously we'll never get -- I can't really speculate more than either of us have already, so I guess we'll just see how it unfolds and decide for ourselves. Which is fine! My principal objection anyway was the concerted level of spin against GWTDT without any context of its expectations or competition or timing.

We've heard each other loud and clear! A rare victory for Internet discourse, huzzah.

It's true. Everyone knows every studio slims down the reported budget, especially if it's under preforming. Also when you consider that this movie had been super hyped since casting, it was on hundreds of "can't wait for.." 2011 lists. All that and it's taken this long to break 100mil. And it's anemic overseas. No one likes it, but considering the hype, this movie is a Box-Office Disappointment.

I face palm over this because I really liked the movie. But I mean, it's true. Let's be real. If someone said it flopped, you should slap them. But if someone said the numbers aren't nearly as good as projected/wished for, they'd be right. sadly.

Anemic:I wouldn't call over $20 million in select territories (including opeing #1 in HK) as anemic. This is the only award film with box office momentum til the end of February.
No one likes it? The Australian gave it a pretty perfect review yesterday. Similarly, GDA, PGA, WGA don't like it either

GWDT has performed exactly as most people with knowledge of the business would expect from an R rated thriller by a lauded director with rape and sex scenes. It's not exactly an event film. Which means it's not going to have a huge opening weekend, but it will also not see huge drops week to week. That's exactly what we've seen.

I think it will continue to do moderately well after the Oscar noms are announced, and it might go on to be like a more rape filled True Grit performer.

I think a lot of those calling it out as a disappointment are referring to the quality of the film in comparison to their expectations, but since nobody wants to offend they call the box office disappointing instead of the movie. (This is theory, not my opinion)

True Grit is an interesting comparison, especially in the awards-season context. Grit pulled in probably a quarter of its domestic total after Oscar noms, where it had the kind of showing I'm expecting GWTDT to have. If the latter can hold the pace it's on and follow a generally similar trajectory as True Grit (though with a hard-R and, as you say, more rape), it's probably on the way to $140m domestic. At least.

And I think you're absolutely right re the reality of critical disappointment fueling the myth of commercial disappointment. Could not agree more.

I couldn't agree more with your thoughts S.T. I've been reading all of the poor box office articles, and I'm thinking, what and the hell did they expect? Lol.....Overall, it's th one Christmas release that's holding steady very well. Overall, I think it's final domestic gross will turn out well....$120-$130 million is my guess...

Sabotage reporting. That's what I've called the coverage of Dragon Tattoo. (No one is talking about Hugo's $150 million budget as they're heaping praise. I'm sure some preproduction cost of this film goes toward the sequels as well.)

Anyone randomly following twitter are seeing people returning to the theater for a second and third time. The film opened number one in several overseas markets this past week with many moreto come. DGA, PGA, WGA noms....This film is showing major legs.

No one is talking about Hugo's budget and box office status because it's a great film adaptation while Dragon Tattoo is unnecessary, long, and doesn't measure up to the grittiness of the Swedish version. I liked the original film far more than Fincher's version and Rapace more than Mara. So there!

No worries, you're not calling me out on anything. I thought the Swedish version represented that world better. Subtitles have nothing to do with, but thanks for your ASSumption. I felt more impacted and drawn into that world through the Swedish version and Rapace's portrayal.

Every year one film gives us a scene that transcends the screen into our culture when all this talk is done -- from Norma Desmond getting ready for her close up to Taxi Driver's "You talking to me?" to the dance scene in Pulp Fiction.

Of all the critically acclaimed films this year (think Tree of Life, Hugo, Was Horse, Moneyball) only one scene has done that: the Enya scene from Dragon Tattoo.

The box office will be just fine, but in that way it has surpassed all the other films, including it's Swedish predecessor.

I think part of it is heaping expectations on a film based on the fact that Laarsen's book was a best-seller for over 2 years. By that metric "What to Expect When You're Expecting" better pull in half-a-billion global or that franchise won't float.

Exactly, that's why I think the expectations were so skewed. Look at what a global smash the novels were and yet the original films did not exactly scorch the international teritories. Combined they barely reached $225 million, and that's with No.Am. numbers.

Stu you are my hero!!! This is one of the best and most truthful articles I've read it quite some time. It's also necessary and perfectly articulated. By now, Dragon Tattoo is all but guaranteed a Best Picture nomination which will boost its box office even higher. When all is said and done, I wouldn't be surprised if it cleared $300 million. The nay sayers are probably embarrassed that a film that many had shrugged off as "unnecessary, long, and a cash grab" turned out to be better the the Swedish film, a major box office contender and an award show regular. Eat your hearts out!!

This was not one of those movies I had to see opening weekend. I never read the book, nor did I see the Swedish version. Finally caught it last night and loved it. I know a bunch of people that want to see it, but just haven't gotten around to it. They will. It's a grower, not a shower.

I didn't love GIRL WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO (the mystery plot was stupid; the book it was based on was pretty much a complete potboiler) but liked it much, much more than HUGO. Now, I love Scorsese, I liked the book it was based on, and I'm down for steampunky, Parisian hijinks, but the movie it not good. The pace was so slow and torturous, the overall emotional tone so sentimental, some of the acting (particularly Chloe Moretz) so awkward, I came out of the theater feeling faintly embarrassed for Scorsese.

Oh don't even ! yet another fan boy article for Fincher's masterpiece. This is not just R rated film rape film based on an unknown screenplay. It is based off a best seller that sold a million e-books alone that broke publishing records. It had an established fan base, the David Fincher name, a major studio behind it, wide release, a very decent budget and very good marketing budget. Daniel Craig is an established name, he is Bond,so yes he was supposed to be a strength, otherwise the studio would not have cast him. The only person in this movie who could not be considered a strength marketing wise, is Rooney Mara who was not an established name, so I doubt few would have come to see the film just for her. But this movie had everything in its favor and had a high expectations and so yes, based on all those strengths it flopped. If the Hunger Games do not make $200 million domestic, they will be called so too because of the in built fan base and the hype alone. Why should they not ?
The Swedish film that had a $13 million dollar budget and made $100 million with subtitles is hit to me. This is a disappointment given all the strengths it had going in.

Take a pill dude! So no one's complaining about Spielberg's movie--we get it. You're upset. Personally I don't want to see this film. I don't know why except maybe all the word of mouth about the extended rape scene or something. I'd rather watch all of Fincher's previous films back to back than watch this one. But I'd like to see Fincher and company win big for it because they deserve it. I hope your argument goes far. Now chill! You sound like me...!

Given Fincher's reputation, I was actually surprised by how tame the rape was, as tame as a rape can be that is. You have to remember, this is a studio film and it IS rated R, not NC-17. Don't go in expecting Irreversible.

Not many people talk about the fact that Fincher fired original DP Fredrik Backar after EIGHT WEEKS of shooting, and replaced him with Jeff Cronenweth. I have no doubt that the reshoots were part of what shot the budget up to $90M.

I don't dispute it's a well-made film, but it would've been fine if they could've kept it down to $40M-$50M (the price range for the very successful SOCIAL NETWORK). Releasing a very pricey, downbeat R-rated film at Christmas was a very dubious idea.

Concerning the holiday opening, i don't believe releasing This at another time of the year would have necessarily been better. the film is doing consistent numbers to the Departed, another $90 million film released in Oct. I don't believe releasing it. Look at the 2012 schedule -- spring, summer. i don't think releasing it another time of year guarantees anything.

There was no other film for adults during the holidays -- a hard R, 18 cert in UK. And it's the strongest film at the box office going into the awards season. Any way you spin it, this will be one of the highest grossing R dramas of all tim worldwide. Personally, I was relieved not to be watching some schmatlzy tear jerker or bad family comedt film over the holidays.

I've admittedly fallen a little bit out of favor with Rooney Mara. Not because of her contributions to this film, certainly; as a matter of fact, I still very much want to see it. No, my misgivings stem from a recent interview she gave when she actually put down one of the earlier films she'd starred in, I think it was that "Nightmare On Elm Street" remake. She basically insulted everybody who contributed to that movie, including all of her fellow actors, which I can't help but view as somewhat arrogant on her part. Plus, regardless of how that movie was ultimately received, an actor should never disrespect any role that furthers their career.

Actually, most cinephiles I know would argue that point, Taran. Just because a film is subtitled does not make it a better film. Hitchcock, Kurasawa, Kubrick....Oplev, the Swedish director, is not discussed in with such filmmakers. Fincher is.

Box office talk aside, Writers Guild, Director's Guild, Art Director's Guild, Producers Guild, American Society of Cinematographers, AFI, National Society of Film Critics have all picked it as one of the best of the year.

I couldn't agree me. I was laughing about all this "box office flop" B.S. just the other day. Talk about ridiculous.

Do people not understand that this is a R rated movie? All the huge box office weekend hits are PG-13 or lower, always.

Also, as has been mentioned many times, it has been performing steadily every week even if it's not putting up those huge MI style numbers. People are underestimating this movie's future earning potential big time, and I'm going to laugh when everyone finally realizes that.

I love how people say this movie is "unecessary" and only people who are "too lazy to read subtitles" will go see it. Yeah, right. I've seen the Swedish version. I'm sorry, subtitles do not equal better in my book. The Fincher film is much better in my opinion. Rooney was the better Lisbeth, and the film stayed truer to the book. And this subtitle argument is weak since half the people that went to see Fincher's film probably don't even know about the Swedish version, and a lot of people that have seen the Swedish version still went to see the American one. Just a bad argument all around.

I think with all the awards nominations and the wins it will inevitably get, yes this movie will keep performing. And the international numbers are going to keep rising as well. I have no doubt about this film's performance in the future.

Turns out the movie lost money. Given the immense popularity of the book, I'd call that a disappointment. But the more relevant point is that critics tried to ram this film down the public's throat, a supposedly "smart, adult film" blah, blah, blah. But the actual result was in my humble opinion middling on every level. I'm somewhat bemused at the lengths movie writers went to in the effort to pimp a forgettable film. In comparison to the hype and the movie critics' infatuation, disappointment works just fine.